Open Letter for a "NEW" Democratic Socialist Party
Sisters and Brothers,
In his Oct. 9th, 2010 column, titled "The NDP: Not your father's socialism," John Ivison of The National Post wrote about the NDP's "metamorphosis of an old 20th-century socialist party into a vibrant 21st-century social democratic party." What exactly a "21-st century social democratic party" looks like is hard to discern though a few clues were provided by Ivison in a lower paragraph in the story:
"Under former leader Alexa McDonough, the party proposed an excess profit tax on financial institutions, which would then finance a National Investment Bank managed by ‘business, labour, government and the community.' There was much talk of ending privatization and increasing public ownership; of raising corporate tax rates and imposing a ‘Millionaire's Tax' on inheritances over $1-million. On foreign policy, the party proposed dissenting from NATO over the use of nuclear weapons.
"The image presented today is very different. The ‘squeeze the rich' rhetoric has been abandoned, in favour of moderate language that tries to reconcile equality and economic well-being. ‘These goals.... are not in conflict, rather they depend on each other,' according to the party's current website."
The Post's track record on virtually every other major issue from the environment to the Middle East notwithstanding, the article's description of the NDP's current political stance is accurate. Indeed, it was proudly embraced by the NDP. A similar quote in a different article, this time in The Toronto Star about the Ontario NDP, was even reproduced on "beta" posters portraying Andrea Horwath standing in front of the slogan "Not Your Grandfather's NDP."
The coincidence is so profound it would almost lead one to wonder if the idea was planted in the heads of the journalists by the party itself. The political party, whose forerunner, the CCF, once held the label "Farmer, Labour, Socialist" above its symbol, no longer uses the word Socialist at all.
Advertising
Why does this matter?
It matters because over the last 40 years, the ideology of neo-liberalism has won every battle in its attempts to reshape our society. It matters because its defeat of the very idea of activist government has emboldened those on the right, and shifted the thinking of those on the left. In short, the NDP is no longer your grandfather's NDP. It is, in fact, your grandfather's Progressive Conservative Party.
Welcome to the new capitalism, unopposed by any meaningful political challenge.
The political consensus that has emerged out of Washington and Ottawa's governing classes is that interventionist government is wrong, except when government intervention is needed to save their friends on Wall Street and Bay Street. It is clear that capitalism is unable to save itself under anything approaching a "free-market" system and the Depression that began in 2008 proves this. With the willing complicity of our self-proclaimed voices of the left, we have instituted a system of socialism and welfare for the rich.
The effect of this political order is to prop up the failures of our societies' wealthiest while abandoning everyone else, including our societies' most vulnerable, by stealing tens of millions of their dollars to fund CEO slush funds and salaries.
While workers were forced to make concessions and millions of them lost their jobs, CEO's salaries went nowhere but up, all subsidized by your tax dollars. Instead of using the power of government to declare war on poverty, we have declared war on the poor and the middle class.
The issue is not that the NDP supported stimulus spending in order to save jobs. The issue is that in supporting these measures, they did so without actively calling for fundamental changes to the system that required bailouts in the first place. As a result, in the final analysis they basically called for the government to back up the tremendous social inequality that is represented by these same CEOs who forced this bailout and yet are now making over 150 times what the average worker does.
This is the problem with operating within the current economic system.
We have become a nation so often obsessed with stories of crime and the fear of the other. Our nightly news and daily front pages focus inordinately on the pornography of crime and individual misery. Meanwhile we ignore the "mundane" suffering perpetuated on so many of our citizens and their children by poverty or the fear of poverty. Is the terror felt by millions of Canadians facing destitution by being one paycheque away from impoverishment not also a genuine crime?
Poverty and hunger is bullying and violence. Only on a mass scale. Want a crime, how about the crime of the outright injustice perpetrated by the government and its accomplices on the daily lives of workers and the middle class? How about the crime of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children living in poverty every day? So many of our politicians have pontificated on the issue of crime. They have stated that there will be zero tolerance for even the average 8-year-old schoolyard bully.
And yet where are those who will say that our society's and government's bullying and violence against poor children is also a crime? If you stand by while a child goes hungry, you are no different than those that would watch a child beaten. Some of our biggest criminals, who leave whole communities destroyed in the wake of their crime spree, go unpunished, and even celebrated. They, through their corporate actions, have harmed more children than any schoolyard bully ever will.
In the face of this system, the NDP, which once articulated a vision for an alternative economic order, now merely argues for changes that are cosmetic, not structural. Rather than help organize citizens at grassroots levels to fight this assault in their communities, they offer band-aid solutions while editing their language and image in the vain hope that they can marginally increase their seat total in an election which, even if they won, would do nothing to alter the political-economy of the country. The NDP is so goal driven in its single-minded obsession to win a few extra seats that it has disempowered its own membership and riding associations from having any meaningful democratic voice within the party at all. Virtually every significant campaign and policy decision is made by the party's central offices and dissident candidates and riding associations are routinely overruled or sidelined. The party does not even have a standing platform!
The time has come to fight, not individual aspects of the state-capitalist system, but rather State Capitalism itself. The time has come to fight against the corporations that have moved our jobs to China, impoverishing workers there while destroying jobs at home. The time has come to fight against the system that has ensured that many of our fellow citizens work most of their lives in temporary labour without health insurance or retirement benefits. The time has come to stand up against the neo-feudalism that creates a society where individual debt is at an all time high while CEOs, "movie stars" and entertainers earn more in a day than most hard-working Canadians will in a year or even a decade, and where they get totally different treatment by the legal system. Rest assured, if the person who stole the $50 TV out of your house is caught they will likely go to jail as opposed to an investment banker who screwed people out of their entire livelihoods.
The time has come to stand up against the daily violence of the system with its destruction of good jobs in Canada and its entrenchment of poverty in the third world, all designed to satisfy an unsustainable consumerism.
Most important of all, the time has come to organize a political movement that will oppose this state-capitalist system and to give voice to this sentiment within parliamentary democracy, as well as within our communities.
The question of whether or not such a new socialist movement will succeed in winning this or that riding in the next election is not of significant importance. The Reform Party, as well as the NDP in their more radical days, demonstrated that a grassroots movement can affect the nature of the political debate without winning even a minority government. It is this victory, the altering of the political discourse in the country, that is the most important victory to win.
The process of altering the political discourse is by no means easy. The forces of the political right have shifted the debate such that, even when they are not in office their policies are still enacted.
One should note that Conservatives were seen as a spent force intellectually in the mid-20th century. Yet within a few years, they had succeeded in destroying the New Deal and Great Society programs in the United States. In Canada, they enacted Free Trade, NAFTA while handing over public wealth to private interests. Those on the left should draw lessons from their victories. The most important lesson is that an organized grassroots movement can alter the political landscape more effectively than a political party that won an election on a platform patched together from focus groups and pollsters.
Focusing on short-term electoral victory may bring more immediate gratification compared with the hard work of building a grassroots movement that will reawaken opposition to the existing socio-economic order. But where has this led us? The left has done focused on short-termism for 30 years and we have only lost.
There is an alternative.
This alternative is:
• A vision of a political movement that will fight for workers' rights;
• A political movement that will fight to prevent the destitution of the middle class;
• A political movement that will stand up against corporate crime and its consequences in your community;
• A political movement that will work to empower employees so that they can take over enterprises when their managers have failed them;
• A political movement that will implement Pharmacare and Public Dental Insurance so that hundreds of thousands of Canadians don't have to decide between things like Asthma medication and their rent;
• A political movement that won't tell you that it will manage state-capitalism better, that won't tell you that it knows how to balance a budget in heels or how to implement a "fairer" austerity.
It could be a political movement that will challenge the very basis of the social order that made these false choices "necessary" at all.
It is an alternative that embraces the idea that a different and better Ontario is possible. That does not accept that poverty and suffering need to be a part of this Ontario. That sees that hope is better than fear and that inspiration is a more powerful force than good management. A movement, that will fight for a future based on democracy, social equality and justice.
This is the Democratic Socialist alternative.
Andrew Klochek is a former NDP riding association president and activist from Toronto and Michael Laxer is a two-time former candidate and former election organizer for the NDP. Both are co-founders of the Ginger Project, a group dedicated to building a grassroots socialist platform for Ontario.
Where do I sign up?
As a long time New Democrat and socialist, I certainly agree that we should not stand content to have John Ivison or the National Postto define what we are.
That said, the attempt in this column falls far short of satisfactory as well.
I don't identify myself as a 'worker'. I was to be in favour of things, rather than 'fighting the destruction of the middle class', whatever that means. I want to reform corporations, not merely stand up to corporate crime. I want to help people create their own enterprises, not merely have them take over others. I want to define a mechanism for social support, not tie myself to social equity oiecemeal through certain programs. I want to manage for prosperity, not merely resist austerity.
I don't want to gather huddled under a big shield designed to pretect me from the evils of the world; I want to have the strangth and the means and the legislation that allows me to stand on my own. I don't want to be a part of some mass movement, as they just exchange one set of leaders for another; I want to be able to define my own movement, however small, and make my change in my own way. I don't want to be a part of an army, or engage in flighting, or to be resisting, I want to build, create, grow, and develop.
The NDP is successful only when it taps into that people want to be. People live and dream (and vote) with their aspirations, not their limitations of class or poverty. I want to define socialism in terms of what we want to be, not what we want to avoid.
-- Stephen Downes
(p.s. I hate my name 'Troll' but I can't seem to change it, and I'm not willing to simply create a new account, as I've had this one for something like six years, and even though I don't comment much, that still counts for something. Not like anyone's reading this disclaimer.)
I don't identify myself as a 'worker'. I [want] to be in favour of things, rather than 'fighting the destruction of the middle class', whatever that means.
I want to reform corporations...
I want to help people create their own enterprises...
I want to manage for prosperity, not merely resist austerity.
I don't want to gather huddled under a big shield designed to pretect me from the evils of the world; I want to have the strangth and the means and the legislation that allows me to stand on my own.
I don't want to be a part of some mass movement...
Spoken like true entrepreneur and rugged individualist. This kind of condescending disdain for the concerns of the working class - i.e., the vast majority of Canadians - is a good example of what is wrong with the NDP.
Stephen,
There is an alternative to party politics. That is, "Perpetual Direct Democracy", where parties become redundant because all political issues could be decided not by the Monarchy, not by the political parties, not by the politicians, but by the majority of Citizens via referendum.
A pilot project is demonstrated on www.nowpolling.ca, and when enough citizens realize the potential political revolution this system can bring, citizens will participate on this pilot project, or will adopt one of their own.
Canada Elections will try, on the next federal election, a pilot project of voting on line; BC Liberals and NDP Party will soon elect their leaders using the internet. It is just matter of time before we Canadians realize the potential benefit of participating on all political issues. In other words, shifting the power of legislation, not just form one party to another, but from the elite politicians to the citizens.
Tommy Douglas urged us not to shift our support from the white cats to the black cats, to the spoted cats, to Zebra cats,but to ourselves, the mice. Ovbiously He ment to promote the Labour Party then, but now we can go a step further, with the new computer technology, and promote peoples' direct governance, not parties.
> This kind of condescending disdain for the concerns of the working class...
I said nothing of the sort.
If I have "condescending disdain" for anything, it's *your characterization* of the concerns of (what you call) the working class.
I am and have spent my entire life among (what you call) the working class. Nobody - NOBODY - talks like your 'alternatives'. What you are presenting is a made up dream.
We - what you call 'the working class' - talk about our hopes and dreams, what we want out of life and what we want for our children. We talk about having enough to make ends meet, making enough to buy a home or new car or entertainment system. About how to pay for college, how to access medical services and pay for prescriptions, about whether we can keep our teeth.
YOU are the one who wants to make us one big mass of undifferentiated anger and hostility. Sure, we're discontented, but that doesn't make us foot-soldiers in your army. We want a politics that serves our needs, wants, and interests.
That's what socialism is about. After all, what's it for, why do we do it at all, if not to achieve our aspirations, hopes and dreams? The people who (like me) may work for the union, negotiate for a better package, work on language all night - do you think they're doing it simply to "fight for workers rights", etc? No - the fight isn't the end in itself.
We want workers' rights (as you call them - I just call them 'human rights') because we are FOR something - we are FOR the ability of each person, no matter who they are, to be able to lead a rich and dignified life, to be safe in home and substance, to each lead their own lives however diversely they choose.
-- Stephen Downes
(still hate the name 'Troll' - I used to run a site called newstrolls.com which is where the name came from - the site is long since history. But we had a good run.)
> by the majority of Citizens via referendum
There's merit to that suggestion, and I have written in the past in support of direct democracy.
My fear, however, is (to continue the analogy) that it's just another way to vote for cats.
You would think that, in principle, if people had the chance to vote for measures that improve their lives, whether at home or in the workplace, that they would do so. This, though, was also the premise behind representative democracy: that the will of the people would be served by allowing them to chose their representatives directly, rather than by having them appointed by a monarch.
It didn't work out that way; almost immediately, instead of representatives of the general population, we got cats. We got the choice between Tories and Liberals, with the voice of the alternative drowned out by one set of corporatists fighting another set of corporatists. Simply posing a question and having mass yes-no responses is no better than voting for Liberals or Tories.
I would like to see a system of direct democracy that is very fine-grained -- the more fine-grained the better, because the detail and diversity is what makes it increasingly difficult for the rich and powerful to purchase outcomes. I don't want to prescribe a precise mechanism -- I think this is something we would have to work with and learn how to do.
-- Stephen Downes
(You can see for yourself my socialist credentials in my articles, here http://www.downes.ca/me/articles.htm which includes all of my NewsTrolls articles and much more. Not that I'm advertsing them or anything. But if people are going to talk of my 'condescending disdain' they should at least have some clue who they're talking about. Of course, all this belongs in the reply to the previous post...)
Troll - the moderators can change your username if you ask them.
As to the dissing, don't worry about it. You've departed from the true socialist shibboleths as defined by the self-appointed vanguards of the working class, that's all. Funny thing is, as much as they talk ABOUT the working class, their absolutist rhetoric never seems to resonate with any working class people I know.
I was hoping that Andrew Klochek and Michael Laxer would have a comment about Tommy Douglas analogy of empowering mice (citizens) instead of changing (parties) representation from one cat to another Cat.
Of course, in those days Direct Democracy was not an easy option because of the lack of computer technology, but now we are all able to represent ourselves on every political decision. Therefore, we no longer need the traditional hierarchical representative democracy dominated by political parties. We just need to develop "Perpetual direct Democracy", as shown on www.nowpolling.ca
"Perpetual direct democracy", in the context of a capitalist, imperialist society in which all the mass media and the education system serve as propagandists for the system, is a hellish scenario. It would be government by right-wing demagoguery.
@pjmora...since you asked...I agree with M.Spector. Direct Democracy in this specific context is a recipe for poll driven fascism.
@Malcolm...you proved our point about so-called leftists buying into right-wing rhetoric. The argument that YOU know no working class people who socialist ideas resonate with and that these ideals are somehow out-of-touch and elitist is the same line the right has used against the NDP for 30 years. Good for you for buying into it. Let us remember it the next time the Right say that Horwath and the NDP only talk ABOUT the workers (using your empahsis). You might as well read from a Toronto Sun script. It is nonsense when they say it about Layton, and it is nonsense when said here. One might note that the NDP has never carried the "working-class" vote in Ontario except in 1990 when it ran on, and then disavowed, a leftist agenda. So the rhetoric plays into a reactionary viewpoint and is a double-edged sword.
@M.Spector...Thanks! You can sign up and join at www.thegingerproject.org
Michael, you can be so tedious.
It has been my fairly consistent experience that the more adamant a person is about certain political language related to the working class, the more remote that person's connection to actual workers. I grew up in a working class home, the child of a trade union member and a worker in an unorganized shop - two people who consistently voted in their class interest by supporting the New Democratic Party. I well recall their eyes rolling when they heard the sort of purist tripe that often gets held up around here.
That is great.
Your personal experience, and the evidence of what Mom and Dad's eyes would indicate, no doubt defines the entire history of the Canadian left. If we all subscribed to the Sun, we would know that our elitist socialist purity has destroyed the country and good men-of-the-people like Rob Ford will put that Ivy League Miller and his million dollar spender friends Layton and Chow in their place.
Really, we have no right to say anything at all, unless we can provide a folksy kitchen table wisdom to prove it.
It is ok to make vast generalizations about people instead of dealing with their ideas. Why not, it is also much easier.
And your anonymous personal postings about two people whose backgrounds you know nothing about are without question a definitive statement on how to approach the issue of fighting for social justice and socialism in Canada. Without any proof, you are without doubt correct that the hundreds of members of the Ginger Project are all totally detached from working class reality, and we are all no doubt Latte drinking, hockey hating, lefty pinko weirdos who hang out in downtown Toronto.
Some of us may even have been involved in the G20 protests. Get a job!
Apologies that your eyes roll on hearing this purist tripe! That is a clear ruling against what we are doing!
Yawn.
The Ginger Project declaration at your website includes many useful goals.
however;
-You need to clarify "secular society". Presumably you aren't outlawing religion altogether.
-Also, the star image in context says, to me, 'The Ginger Project seeks to align itself historically with the USSR'. It's inaccurate for new socialisms to line themselves up with the USSR which did not act socially.
-Third, your declaration omits discussion of federal transfer payments for healthcare, pharmacare, education